Minimum number of views

NEW DELHI: The home ministry is set to reject the demand of intelligence agencies for a "blanket" exemption from the purview of the Right to Privacy Bill and endorse the existing rider that requires them to intrude one's privacy only in the interest of "sovereignty, integrity and security of India".
Read at: Home Ministry set to junk intelligence's plea for exemption from RTI - The Economic Times

In a reply to a RTI query filed by activist Ankita Shah, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has denied giving the Bhandewadi land to any NGO. However, it has been allowing People For Animals (PFA) to run the animal shelter home without any agreement for more than three years now. The issue was also raised in the recently held general body meeting of NMC in which corporator Abha Pande pointed out that PFA has been unofficially running the shelter home without any paperwork.
Read at: NMC builds a home for dogs, but doesn?t care about its upkeep - The Times of India

ministry of home affairs ,govt of india gave information on my rti about z-security ......1.it ts stated that the responsibility for providing security rests primarily with the state govt. concerned in whose jurisdiction an individual ordinarily resides or happens to be. security to an individual is provided on the basis of assessment of threat carried by security agencies. security provide by union govt. ,it is stated that it is not possible to arrive the exact no of categorized protectees at a time as it is varying from time to time based on threat assessmnt made by central security agencies. however as on date there are 76 number of protectees in the central list . 2-regarding expnditure incurred on security ,it is stated that the responsibility for providing security rests primarily with the state govt.concrnd in whose jurisdiction an individual ordinarily resides or happens to be.due to involmnt of multiple agencies include state govt agencies ,it is difficult to estimate the expnditure on security.moreover such expnditure is incurred by the security agencies concerned under their own budgetary allocation and under their heads of accounts and such figure are neither centrally available nor maintaind .

Home ministry prepares cabinet note proposing to make electoral bribery cognizable offence
NEW DELHI: In what could be the first poll reform ushered in by the Modi government, the home ministry has prepared a draft cabinet note proposing to make electoral bribery a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A cognizable offence is an offence for which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant.
The police are also allowed to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court for cognizable offences. Currently, bribing voters, in cash or kind, during the election season is a non-cognisable offence under sections 171B/171E of the Indian Penal Code, which attracts only up to one-year of imprisonment or fine as punishment.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), in 2012, had asked the home ministry to amend the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to make it a cognizable offence and also increase punishment to up to two years.
That suggestion has been accepted by the new government. The home ministry, in a letter dated December 22, 2014, has informed the poll panel that the process to amend the CrPC has been "initiated" and that a draft cabinet note, approved by home minister Rajnath Singh, has been sent to the legislative department to prepare a draft bill.
The ministry's letter was in response to the poll panel's query, dated December 11, 2013, regarding the status of the suggestion to make bribery a cognizable offence. "We made this query because it pertains specifically to the home ministry.
Other electoral reforms are with the law ministry and they have sent it to the Law Commission for their suggestions on it," said a senior EC official, who did not wish to be identified.
The EC has often lamented that without changes in the IPC and CrPC, it is like a toothless tiger as currently bribery is a bailable offence attracting only minimal punishment. "This is required for us to take any effective action. Without a warrant you can't even search the house of person who could be hiding Rs 20 lakh at home to distribute among voters at night,' said another EC official, not authorized to speak to media.
Read more at:
Home ministry prepares cabinet note proposing to make electoral bribery cognizable offence - The Economic Times

Hi All,
I am a resident of Venkatropet, Secunderabad, Telangana and have been living at this place since my birth. I have recently moved to Canada for working. Last year I went home during my daughters summer break and came across a nuisance that has gripped our colony/ neighbourhood.
Issue - There is a single lady aged 50+, living beside our house, in the past things have been nice and peaceful in our colony. Off late there is a sudden change in her behavior. She has categorically been abusing all the neighbors on a daily basis and at different times, her actions range from foul language to threatening gestures, and sometimes confrontation with us neighbors on the road.
We were utterly helpless on how to deal with this situation and seek expert guidance and in this matter. It has become difficult and embarrassing for us as this lady's behavior is disrupting our lives on day to day basis ( I hear this from my family back home). Attempts in the past were made by neighbors to understand her concern, however all such attempts were thwarted. There is no one who stays in that house apart from her, therefore trying to reason out is not an option. She has a brother, but he seems to have abandoned her and we neighbors are now facing this nuisance. I have other affluent neighbors (lawyer & a retired civil servant) who have just shut themselves up, while the issue is compounding daily there is no direction for the uniqueness of the issue we are facing.
Action taken - In the past I sent an email to (acp_alwal@cyb.appolice.gov.in;dcp_alwal@cyb.appolice.gov.in) the police and have not received an acknowledgement, I dialled 100 and no response was received from the police. I am looking for some direction on how to take this matter up with competent authorities during my next visit home. I do also have the usual apprehensions where I don't want to get too involved in running around police stations, due to the short nature of my break.
Thank you for your help and support in this matter.
Sincerely,
K.K. Choudhury

As reported by Ashwini Shrivastava in ptinews.com on 23 December 2008:
Home, Law min in row over State Emblem of India Act
Home, Law min in row over State Emblem of India Act
New Delhi, Dec 23 (PTI) When it comes to deciding on prosecution for any violation of the State Emblem, two Union ministries seem to be in a quandary.
Correspondence between Home and Law ministries following an RTI application appears to bring out lack of clarity in dealing with violation under the State Emblem of India (SEI) Act, 2005.
Despite being the administrative ministry, the Home Ministry has asked the Law ministry to inform "the level of the officer in its (MHA) ministry who may be competent to give sanction for prosecution under the Act."
According to an RTI query, the Ministry of Home Affairs was asked to provide details of prosecuting authority in the Centre to sanction prosecution under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
The RTI applicant also asked the MHA to advise the number of cases of prosecution instituted under the Act throughout the country along with details of convictions that may have taken place under the SEI Act.
The Home Ministry, however, sent the reply that said, "... Information sought by you (the applicant) is being finalised in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice".
It then forwarded a note to the Law Ministry asking advice, the reply included.
The MHA in the RTI reply has also asked the Law ministry "whether an offence under section 3 and/or 4 read with section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 is cognizable or non-cognizable?" PTI